NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:22) | | Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:17) | | Given that we have living things and we have non-living things, abiogenesis must have occurred. |
Nice strawman. We have exactly TWO possibilites of causes that can explain our origins. naturalism, and creationism. So IF a creator is the causal agent, abiogenesis is not. So there is no reaso to claim a MUST. |
NO. You are assuming your conclusion.
I am arguing that we do not, in fact, have two possibilities.
We have only one -- naturalism.
No other "possibility" has ever been shown to be actually possible.
I reject the claim.
Further, as I have laid out, and as you persist in not addressing, we have the problem of how non-living matter becomes alive, regardless of whether we take recourse to a creator or not.
Either the creator is biologically alive, in which case the problem merely recedes one level, or the creator somehow caused non-living matter to become alive.
In both cases, we have the problem of how it was done.
"Poof" is not an explanation.
You keep insisting you are not arguing for 'poof'. I keep pointing out that aside from question-begging and assuming your conclusions as premises in your argument, it is all your argument comes down to.
We still lack a mechanism.
Absent a mechanism, we haven't answered the 'how'.
|
